Computer Based Instruction and the

Mathematics Learner

Sabrina Thomas

CI 5040

April 27, 2010

Dr. C. Dean

2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a computer-based instructional

program, specifically Cornerstone, in order to see if student’s knowledge of number sense

improved. In addition to the effectiveness of the computer program, I was also evaluating

whether or not using computer-based instruction would improve the attitudes and the

participation of the students. Over a period of five weeks, the students took a pretest, worked

through a series of lessons, and then took a posttest. During this time I conducted interviews and

did observations in the classroom and the computer lab. After all of the data was collected and

analyzed, it was determined that Cornerstone was not effective in improving student learning.

Neither did it improve the attitudes and participation of the students. After reading this study,

teachers will have a better idea of what to take into consideration before implementing computer-

based instruction.

3

I have been teaching school for fifteen years. Up until this year, I have been in the

classroom teaching fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. This year I am teaching Title One Math. This

is a new program at my school. It is up to me to establish this program from the ground up.

Overall, I feel like the program is showing promise. Feedback from classroom teachers indicates

they are happy with Title One Math and feel like it is benefiting students. Currently, there are

very few Title One Math programs in North Carolina. While that does give me the freedom to

establish the program as I see fit, it also puts a tremendous amount of responsibility on my

shoulders to develop an effective program that will truly benefit students.

Working with struggling students can be challenging. Often times, students experiencing

difficulties become very unmotivated and lose confidence in their ability to learn content. With

this in mind, I have set out to see how technology can possibly help struggling students perform

better and hopefully feel better about themselves as math students. Two particular fourth grade

students have been quite a challenge this year. I feel that both of these students have the capacity

to learn, but their attitudes and behaviors are significant stumbling blocks for both of them. They

are both weak in basic math concepts, and any remediation they receive is met with a lack of

effort and no motivation to learn. It is my hope that using technology to offer remediation may

spark a new interest in learning for both of these students while at the same time strengthening

their number sense knowledge.

Research Questions

I have developed a research question followed by two sub questions to be the focus of my

study. These questions will provide me with data I can use in order to evaluate the effectiveness

of computer-based instruction and how computer-based instruction affects two particular

4

students. My focus question is: How does instruction using the computer-based program,

Cornerstone, impact students’ performance in the area of number sense? I will also explore the

following sub questions:

How does using Cornerstone affect classroom participation?

How does using Cornerstone affect attitudes about math?

For the purposes of this action research project, attitude will be defined as how a student feels

about math, specifically does the student like math. Participation will be defined as classroom

behaviors that affect learning including, (but not limited to): asking questions, using

manipulatives appropriately, being actively engaged and participating in classroom discussions.

Literature Review

Effectiveness of Technology

Technology has become an integral part of our society. Schools are no exception. The

schools that I have worked in have had at least a couple of computers in each classroom for

student use, and every school has housed at least one computer lab. Educators have a

responsibility to know what kind of impact technology will have on students. The question is no

longer will students be exposed to technology, but instead how can that technology be most

effectively used (McCollister, Burts, Wright, & Hildreth, 1986).

Students are using technology in a variety of ways including: surfing the web, creating

presentations, using graphics, and word processing. In addition, students are using computer-

assisted instruction in order to master specific learning objectives (Traynor, 2003). The

challenge facing educators today is knowing the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction.

5

If instructional time is going to be used in order for students to complete computer-based

instructional programs, then educators need to have confidence that those programs will be

effective, which means increasing student achievement and conceptual understanding (Hannafin

& Foshay, 2008; Drickney, 2006). Unfortunately for educators, very few studies have been done

to measure the effectiveness of computer-based instruction (McCollister et al., 1986; Traynor,

2003; Neill & Matthews, 2009).

While more research needs to done in order to determine the effectiveness of computer-

based instruction, teachers should not shy away from using technology in the classroom. In fact,

the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is advocating the use of technology in order to

teach math more effectively. “The Technology Principle,” states: “Mathematics instructional

programs should use technology to help all students understand mathematics and should prepare

them to use mathematics in an increasingly technological world” (Drickey, 2006, p 109). Not

only can teachers use technology to help students show greater achievement and gain a deeper

understanding of concepts, the use of technology can also increase student motivation to learn.

Improving Students’ Motivation and Attitudes About Learning

All teachers I know have had the experience of working with students that have no

motivation to learn. Finding ways to get these reluctant students engaged and excited about their

own learning can be very difficult. Technology could be one way to motivate these students.

Early on, advocates believed that using computer-based instruction would increase student

motivation to learn (Hannafin & Foshay, 2008). Five specific components that increase

motivation for learning have been identified. These components include: personalizing

information, animation, challenging and curious practice activities, a fantasy setting, and learner

6

choice (Traynor, 2003). Using technology not only increases students’ motivation to learn, it can

also improve a student’s attitude about learning. According to Hannafin and Foshay (2008),

students tend to have a more positive attitude about learning in classrooms that use computer-

based instruction. Teachers need to make sure they are not using technology only because it gets

students excited. We must make sure that any use of technology is appropriate.

Appropriate Use of Technology

“While some would argue that the introduction of technology into schools changed

education, others would suggest that the appearance of the classroom changed, but many of the

activities remain the same” (Donovan, Hartley, & Strudler, 2007, p 263). Teachers need to look

at how they are using technology in their teaching, and make sure that this statement does not

apply to their specific classroom. One difficulty facing teachers as they work to implement

technology into student learning is knowing what is appropriate use of technology which leads to

greater student performance in the area of mathematics ( Suth, Johnston, & Douds, 2008). Many

computer-based instructional programs have been labeled as “drill and kill,” focusing only on

low-level skills and rote application of algorithms with little to no teaching incorporated into the

program (Hannafin & Foshay, 2008). Hannafin and Foshay (2008) claim that until computers

are used to support less directive and more student-centered learning environments, any impact

on learning in the K-12 arena will be minimal if at all. One of my goals of this action research

project is to see if using Cornerstone gives students a more positive experience than Hannafin

and Foshay point out. Whether it is using technology, using manipulatives, or even using

calculators, teachers must always make sure that any component used in the classroom is

appropriate for the students.

7

8

Components of Effective Computer-based Instructional Programs

Some researchers are beginning to see success with computer-based instruction that

focuses on one specific skill or concept (Traynor, 2003; Hannafin & Foshay, 2008). Programs

that are showing promise share some common elements. First of all, pre and posttests are

essential in order to ensure that the student is working at the appropriate level (Fuchs, Fuchs,

Hamlet, Powell, Capizzi, & Seethaler, 2006; Ross & Bruce, 2009). Another important

component that seems to make computer-based instruction more successful is completion of all

lessons. Studies in which students completed all of the lessons as opposed to completing only

some of the lessons showed more success (Ross & Bruce, 2009; Traynor, 2003). Finally,

students need to have the ability to complete the lessons at their own pace and not move to the

next lesson until they have mastered the current lesson (Hannafin & Foshay, 2008; Traynor,

2003; Ross & Bruce, 2009). Many school districts are spending large sums of money to

purchase technology to support learning. Schools and teachers must work together to ensure that

technology purchased will meet the intended need and will be effective (LeTendre, Wurtzel, &

Bouckris, 1999; Gulley, 2009). Many computer-based programs are available. Before making

decisions about what programs to implement, research must be done to make sure those

programs will be effective.

Methods

Context

Elk Knob School (pseudonym) is located in a rural county in North Carolina, serving 383

students. Three percent of the school population is minority students. The majority of the

population of this school is low socio-economic status, with approximately fifty percent of the

9

population on free or reduced lunch. Due to the high number of students receiving free and

reduced lunch, Elk Knob is a Title One school. Being identified as a Title One school gives the

school additional funding in order to offer more services and support to low income students.

Title One Math is a new program at Elk Knob School for the 2009-2010 school year.

Students are identified for Title One Math services based on the following criteria: scoring a

level I or a level II on the North Carolina End of Grade test, receiving previous Title One

services, repeating a grade, and receiving a teacher recommendation. Each criterion is assigned

a point value. Students receiving the highest number of points receive Title One services.

Students receiving Exceptional Children’s services are not usually placed into a Title One

program. Exceptions are made whenever a grade level has a small number of students in need of

Title One services so spaces are available. It is the goal of Elk Knob School to serve as many

children as possible so “double dipping” is avoided if it will result in one child receiving two

services and another child receiving no services.

Participants

I have selected two students for this action research project. Both students are served by

the Exceptional Children’s program, specifically identified as learning disabled in Math. I

selected these students because I work with them together in a small group. That made it an

ideal situation to conduct a case study with both of these students. Another reason I selected

them was because I was hopeful that working through the Cornerstone program would truly help

them close some gaps that they both have in their number sense knowledge. I felt that if using

Cornerstone proved successful, these two students would definitely benefit academically from

this experience.

10

Both of these students exhibit behaviors that negatively affect their learning. Unlike

other students I work with, Beth (pseudonym) and Kyle (pseudonym) are very unmotivated. It is

difficult to get either one of them to verbally participate in class. Both students have learned that

if they sit and do nothing, eventually someone will give them the answer or do the work for

them. When direct classroom instruction is taking place, neither student is engaged. While the

other students will be listening to what I’m saying and asking questions, Beth will often have her

head down. Kyle will copy anything I write on the board, but oftentimes has no idea what it

means. Most fourth graders always have their hand up to answer questions and genuinely enjoy

attention from their teachers. Both Kyle and Beth go out of their way to be invisible. I have had

situations when I know Beth knows the answer to a very simple question and she still refuses to

answer me. Kyle, on the other hand, just shouts out the first number he thinks of without giving

any real thought to the question. In a few instances, the question did not even call for a

numerical answer. Both of these students need remediation in basic math skills. When

compared to the other fourth graders I work with, Kyle and Beth are performing significantly

below their peers.

Beth is a fourth grader. She was retained in Kindergarten. Beth is a very defiant child.

Her mother tries her best to be a supportive parent, but she doesn’t really know how to handle

Beth’s defiance.

Kyle is also a fourth grader. He has attended several different schools in the same

county. This is his second year at Elk Knob School. His father tries to be supportive, but is very

limited in his own academic abilities, and is very honest about his inability to help Kyle at home.

11

Title One services are delivered through two modes at Elk Knob: inclusion and pull-out.

I see each group of students twice a week regardless of whether it is inclusion or pull-out. When

providing services through pull-out, I serve no more than five students at a time. Fourth graders

are served through pull out. Because Kyle and Beth are so much lower than their peers, they are

served with only one other student allowing me to provide more intensive remediation and one-

on-one help.

Due to the fact that I serve these students in a small group and focus on remediation, I

have had to make only minor modifications in my teaching in order to conduct this study.

Usually the skills I am working on compliments what the teacher is currently covering in the

classroom. Based on the limitations with what is available in Cornerstone, I will not be able to

do that with this study. I have discussed this with the classroom teacher, and since both of these

students are so weak in the area of number sense, we both felt like this would be time well spent

for them.

Data Collection

Throughout this project I collected three types of data. I conducted survey and interviews

with the students. The classroom teacher completed a survey about each student. I observed

both students in the computer lab working on Cornerstone and in the regular fourth grade math

class. The purpose of the interviews, surveys, and classroom observations was to evaluate the

students’ attitudes and motivation about math and to gain insight into their classroom

participation. In order to measure student learning, the students completed pretests, lesson

quizzes and posttests all designed by Cornerstone. The Cornerstone program is set up so that the

teacher can print reports showing student scores on the tests and quizzes.

12

Surveys and Interviews. The first step in the research process consisted of surveys and

interviews. I conducted surveys with Beth and Kyle to gain insights into their attitudes about

math (see Appendix A). The fourth grade teacher completed a survey about each student and

what behaviors she observed in each student during the regular math class (see Appendix B).

Based on the survey results I then conducted interviews with Beth and Kyle in order to get more

detailed answers from each student (see Appendix C).

Finally, I conducted post interviews with Beth and Kyle (see Appendix D). Some of the

questions during this interview were about their experiences in the computer lab as well as what

they felt they had learned from using Cornerstone. Other questions dealt with their attitudes

about math to see if any changes had taken place.

Testing. Before using Cornerstone, Kyle and Beth took a pretest designed by

Cornerstone in order to assess their number sense math skills. The pretest consisted of twelve

multiple choice questions. Each student received a score based on the percentage of questions

answered correctly. After the pretest, each student worked through a series of lessons at their

own pace. After completing each lesson, the students will took a quiz on that lesson’s particular

content. If the student did not score at least 80%, they had to repeat that lesson and quiz. The

program was set up so that the student would have two opportunities to show mastery on the

quiz. After completing the four number sense lessons and quizzes, each student then took the

posttest designed by Cornerstone in order to measure any improvement in their number sense

math skills. The posttest followed the same format of the pretest and consisted of twelve

multiple choice questions.

13

Observations. I observed Kyle and Beth in the computer lab while using Cornerstone.

The students worked in the computer lab two times a week for thirty minutes each session. I

observed Beth and Kyle during these sessions to see how much effort they put into each lesson.

I also monitored their body language and facial expressions.

I observed Beth and Kyle in their regular math class during direct instruction on three

different occasions. I was looking for any changes in their classroom participation. During this

time I continued to monitor body language and facial expressions to see if there was any

difference between the computer lab and the classroom.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the data collected was an ongoing process. Early on, some distinct trends

started to emerge. During all observations, I took field notes, and I made notes in the margins

about the trends that were clearly emerging. Interviews were taped in order to be played back so

that I could complete written transcripts and look for trends there. Data was collected over five

weeks. Once all of the data was collected, I reviewed the data. I read over field notes of the

observations many times. I completed the transcripts of the interviews and read over those many

times as well. Based on the trends that emerged I formulated my assertions. Then I looked over

my data again and compared it to the assertions I had made. Finally, I had a discussion with the

fourth grade teacher and shared my data and assertions with her since she works with these

students on a daily basis. In addition to getting feedback from her concerning my assertions and

data, I felt it would benefit her as the classroom teacher to see what trends had emerged during

this case study.

14

Findings

After collecting and analyzing the data, it was apparent that using Cornerstone had no

positive impact on students. The data showed that using Cornerstone does not support student

learning. In fact, the data suggests that Cornerstone could actually be damaging to a student’s

learning. It was my hope that using Cornerstone would have an impact on students’ attitudes

about math and motivation to learn, but the data did not support that either. Finally, the students

I observed do not participate in class in a manner that supports learning. Using Cornerstone did

not change the students’ classroom participation.

No Support of Student Learning

When analyzing the data, there were several examples that support the assertion that

using Cornerstone does not support student learning. The first piece of data examined was the

pretest scores in comparison to the posttest scores. Both the pretest and the posttest consisted of

twelve multiple choice questions. Beth answered five questions correct on the pretest and six

questions correct on the posttest. The evidence from the second student was even stronger. Kyle

answered seven questions correct on the pretest and only one question correct on the posttest.

Cornerstone contains concepts that are not included in the NC Standard Course of Study.

Based on the NC Standard Course of Study last revised in 2003, negative numbers are not taught

until sixth grade. Level A in Cornerstone, which is fourth grade level, includes a lesson on

reading thermometers with temperatures below zero. Beth and Kyle had no previous experience

with negative numbers before completing this lesson in Cornerstone. After completing this

lesson, neither student showed improvement in their abilities to use and understand negative

numbers. Both students completed this lesson two times due to low quiz scores. Beth scored

15

40% and 60% respectively. Kyle scored 40% on both quizzes. These were the lowest scores

either student scored on the quizzes. This lesson left both students feeling very unsuccessful.

Both students became very frustrated and started guessing and checking because they had no

idea how to approach these questions. Cornerstone does not support student learning when the

lesson addresses a topic that has not been previously introduced by a teacher.

Quiz scores for both students indicates using Cornerstone doesn’t support student. Table

1 below shows the scores each student received on each lesson quiz. When using Cornerstone, a

student must score at least 80% on the quiz before they can move to the next lesson. As shown

in Table 1, Beth was successful on all lesson topics except the temperature quiz. This was the

only lesson Beth had to repeat. While Kyle had several low scores, his quiz lesson scores on the

temperature quizzes were consistently the lowest. Beth was more successful using Cornerstone

when compared to Kyle; however, neither student experienced outstanding success.

16

Table 1

Student Scores on Cornerstone Lesson Quizzes

Student: Kyle Student: Beth

Lesson Score Lesson Score

Place Value

Place Value

Numbers & Word

Names

Comparing &

Ordering Numbers

Comparing &

Ordering Numbers

Temperature

Temperature

40%

60%

80%

60%

100%

40%

40%

Place Value

Numbers & Word Names

Comparing & Ordering Numbers

Temperature

Temperature

80%

80%

80%

40%

60%

Impact of Cornerstone on Attitude and Motivation

Another assertion I made was that using Cornerstone had no impact on students’

attitudes about math. In the initial surveys I conducted, Beth indicated that she hated math.

17

She stated, “Math is always hard, but that she does her homework every night”. When I

conducted the same initial survey with Kyle, he stated that he loves math. He stated, “I study,

listen to the teacher, and always do my homework.” I did not feel like I got very accurate

answers from the students. Their comments were very vague on the written survey. In hopes

of getting more informative information, I did a follow-up interview with each student. This

interview did not go well with either student. Both students would just look at me when I

asked a question. I ended up having to reword the questions to something like do you do this

or do you do that before I would get any kind of responses. When I would ask either student

to elaborate, again I got very general, vague responses. Beth’s answers were more consistent

in that she repeatedly indicated she hated math. Kyle, on the other hand, was clearly trying to

say what he thought I wanted to hear.

When comparing Beth’s final interview answers to the responses she gave on the initial

interview, there was no change. She indicated that she still didn’t like math. When I asked her

to name one thing she liked about using Cornerstone, she stated, “Nothing.” When I asked her

if Cornerstone helped her she told me yes. When I asked her to elaborate, she stated, “It

helped me learn temperature.” This statement is inconsistent with my findings. When you

look at Beth’s scores on the temperature quiz, she did not learn temperature. As stated earlier,

she earned her lowest score on the temperature quiz.

The follow-up interview with Kyle resulted in inconsistent responses as well. When I

asked Kyle what he had learned from Cornerstone, he first stated that math was fun. His body

language did not indicate math was fun. He was slumped down in his chair and put forth no

effort. When I asked him if there was anything else he learned from Cornerstone he stated, “I

learned division.” When I asked Kyle to elaborate on how Cornerstone helped him on division

18

he said, “I don’t know." Kyle didn’t do anything in Cornerstone that was related to division.

Again, Kyle was using his “default” of either division or multiplication to answer to any math

question.

In summary, most of Beth’s answers about whether or not she liked math were

consistent with the answers she gave in the first interview, as were Kyle’s. What is evident is

that neither student has enough math knowledge to explain what they’ve learned or what they

do or do not like. Kyle uses multiplication and division as his answers to everything he likes

and has learned. Beth, on the other hand, always states she doesn’t like math. It is clear that

Cornerstone did not change either student’s attitude about math.

Impact of Cornerstone on Participation

The final assertion that emerged from reviewing the data was that using Cornerstone

had no impact on student’s participation in the classroom or in the computer lab. The fourth

grade teacher completed a survey about each student based on their classroom participation.

The teacher reported that Beth is rarely engaged and usually does not put forth genuine effort

(*see note at end of paper). She went on to state that Beth never participates in classroom

discussions and rarely does her homework. She did report that Beth does sometimes use

manipulatives appropriately in the classroom.

When analyzing the teacher’s survey concerning Kyle, the data suggested he is even

less engaged than Beth. The teacher reported that Kyle is rarely engaged, practically never

puts forth genuine effort, and does not use manipulatives correctly most of the time. She went

on to state that Kyle never participates in classroom discussions and completes no homework.

I observed Kyle while he was working on Cornerstone in the computer lab on three

19

different occasions. During the first observation, Kyle did not read the teaching information

that was provided on the computer screen. He would select one answer and then another until

he guessed the correct answer. Kyle had to repeat most lessons due to low quiz scores.

During my second observation in the computer lab, his facial expressions and body language

indicated he was very bored. He was slumped down in his seat with a frown on his face. I had

a talk with him. I explained that he needed to read the information provided in the lesson,

actively participate, and stop guessing. I tried to help him see that he was bored because he

wasn’t engaged. After our discussion, his effort and participation improved and he scored

much better on the lesson quiz. I ended up having to having another discussion with Kyle

about active participation and effort during my third observation in the computer lab. His

effort improved somewhat, but once again it didn’t last.

During my first and second observations of Beth working in the computer lab, I was

very pleased with what I saw. Beth was engaged and actively participated in every lesson she

completed. She was motivated and focused on the content of the lessons. She took her time

when deciding on the answer to a question. Her facial expressions showed that she was

putting forth her best effort.

There was a distinct change in Beth’s participation when she worked on the

temperature lesson during the third observation. As stated earlier, negative numbers are not

taught in the NC Standard Course of Study until sixth grade. When Beth started working on

this lesson her effort dropped off significantly. She stopped trying to work through each

question and started guessing and checking. Her shoulders slumped and the frustration was

very evident by looking at her facial expressions. In this instance, using Cornerstone caused

20

the student’s participation and effort to decrease significantly.

The final piece of data used to evaluate student participation was classroom

observations. I observed the fourth grade math class on two different occasions. During the

first observation students were using base ten blocks to model decimals. The teacher named a

decimal for the students to model and then walked around the room checking student’s work

and helping anyone that needed it. Beth was engaged and actively participating in this lesson.

She used the manipulatives appropriately and never played with them. Kyle was not engaged

at all. He played with the manipulatives making it look like he was using them appropriately

while he glanced around the room and looked at what the other students were doing. He was

copying his peers’ work. The students were then instructed to write the decimal as a fraction.

Beth needed help with this. She raised her hand and the teacher came over and helped Beth

and another student at the same time. Kyle did not attempt to write the fraction. He was

messing in his desk. The teacher realized that Kyle needed help, but when she attempted to

help him he was not receptive. He scooted over in his chair in what looked like an attempt to

get as far away from her as possible, and was slumped over in his chair. As the lesson

continued, Beth remained engaged and participated. Kyle was never engaged and never

actively participated in the lesson.

When I observed the fourth grade math class on the second occasion, students were

using cut-out shapes to model line and rotational symmetry. The teacher started out by

modeling line symmetry with a few of the shapes. While Beth was watching the teacher and

engaged, Kyle was scratching his ear with his pencil. He never did watch the teacher. He had

no idea what was going on in the classroom. When the students were given the direction to

test the rest of the shapes and see which ones had line symmetry, Beth immediately got to

21

work and was successful. Kyle did not know what to do. He tried to make it look like he was

testing his shapes, but he was actually copying his peers. The second part of the lesson

consisted of testing the shapes for rotational symmetry. Once again, while the teacher was

modeling the strategy, Beth was engaged and participating while Kyle was doodling on a piece

of paper. When it came time for the students to work independently, Beth needed help. She

raised her hand and the teacher helped her. Kyle continued to copy his peers. Once the

teacher did a couple of examples with Beth, she was able to continue on her own. Kyle never

did complete any tests on his own. He continued to rely on his peers throughout the entire

lesson.

Overall, Beth was engaged most of the time and was participating in classroom

instruction. Kyle on the other hand, was never truly engaged and didn’t participate in the

classroom or the computer lab. Cornerstone had no impact on either student’s participation.

Discussion

After collecting and analyzing all of the data, I have concluded that using Cornerstone

did not have an impact on student learning or student attitude and participation. Unlike the

findings of Fuchs et al., (2006), the students I studied did not show improvement in learning

even though the students took a pretest before beginning a unit in Cornerstone and a posttest at

the end of the unit. The pretest showed that these students needed to strengthen their number

sense knowledge. One participant appeared to be doing well while she worked through the

Cornerstone unit; however, when she took the posttest her score did not show any significant

improvement. She only answered one more question correct on the posttest than the pretest.

The other student did significantly worse on the posttest as compared to the pretest answering

22

only one question correct indicating that using Cornerstone had a negative effect on learning.

Both students completed all of lessons in the Cornerstone unit on number sense. My

data contradicts the findings of Ross & Bruce (2009) whose study found students were

successful when they completed all of the lessons as opposed to only some of the lessons, and

showed mastery on a lesson before moving on to the next lesson. Cornerstone was set up so

that students needed to show 80% mastery on a lesson before moving on. Kyle completed

three out of four lessons two times. Yet he was very unsuccessful on the lesson quizzes. He

only showed mastery on two of the four lessons. On the other two lesson quizzes he never

showed more than 60% mastery. Given the fact that Kyle had completed each of the three

lessons twice, Kyle should have shown more mastery if Cornerstone were effective. The

second student in my study showed 80% mastery on three lessons and only had to repeat one

lesson in which mastery was never attained. Even though both students completed all of the

lessons at their own pace, that did not result in improved student learning.

Cornerstone is designed around a unit of study, in this case number sense. Each lesson

covers one specific learning objective. In constrast with Traynor (2003), Beth and Kyle were

not successful even though Cornerstone lessons taught only one learning objective. The lesson

involving temperature was particularly difficult for both students. Negative numbers are not

taught in the NC Standard Course of Study until sixth grade. Beth and Kyle had no prior

knowledge of negative numbers before completing this Cornerstone lesson. Both students had

very low scores on this lesson quiz. In fact, both students had to complete the temperature

lesson two times. This was the only lesson Beth had to complete. Cornerstone was not

effective with this topic because there was no real teaching in Cornerstone. In agreement with

Hannafin and Foshay (2008), technology that is a “drill and kill” program, like Cornerstone,

23

will have minimal impact on learning if at all. Neither student reached mastery level on this

content.

It was my hope that Beth and Kyle would become more motivated and engaged in

learning as a result of computer based instruction. That was not the outcome of this research

project. Although Hannafin & Foshay (2008) stated that using computer-based instruction

would increase student motivation to learn, that was not the case with Kyle. Kyle was very

bored in the computer lab when working on Cornerstone. He would not read the teaching

information provided on the screen. Instead, he would guess and check until he selected the

correct answer or the computer would give him the correct answer. He put forth very little

effort and his quiz scores and posttest score reflect his lack of effort and participation.

Working in the computer lab using Cornerstone did nothing to motivate Kyle. When

compared to Kyle, Beth was more engaged when working in the computer lab. She was more

attentive to the lesson and participated more effectively. While Beth had a much more positive

experience using Cornerstone, it was not a result of using Cornerstone. Beth was motivated

and engaged from the beginning. There was no change in Beth’s effort and participation the

more she worked in the computer lab. Using Cornerstone had no impact on the motivation or

attitude of Beth or Kyle.

Implications

As I have researched the topic of computer-based instruction and Title One Math

services, there are a few ideas that will direct my teaching choices from now on. Most of the

teachers I have worked with have been very dedicated to making sure that they do what is in

the best interest of their students. It is my hope that I can share this research with other

24

teachers and that they can use what I have learned to help them make the best choices for their

students.

My school system has spent large sums of money purchasing computer-based

instructional programs. The research I conducted showed that at least one of those programs,

Cornerstone, is not effective. I have learned about some components that do make CBI

programs successful. As my school is examining programs for future purchase, I can now

share some of that knowledge with colleagues and that will help us make better decisions.

Programs that are animated, offer students choice, have a fantasy setting, and have challenging

and curious practice activities have the potential to be more effective. I can guide my

colleagues and administrator in making sure that we stay away from programs that are “drill

and kill” focusing only on rote memorization of algorithms. We need to look for software that

provides opportunities for students to expand their thinking and explore ideas. Computer

programs need to help children test their ideas and theories, not force them to do the same

thing over and over again.

Based on this project, it is unlikely that I will use computer-based instruction programs

with my students, but if I ever did there is one component that I would do in conjunction with

the computer program. One problem with Cornerstone was that it was very weak in actually

teaching a concept. I would make sure that I was actively teaching the concept along with the

computer program. What I mean by that is that as the students were working on the program

and I noticed that they were having significant difficulty, I would tell them to stop working on

the computer and I would start delivering direct instruction. This idea was a result of the

difficulties the students encountered while trying to complete the temperature lesson using

negative numbers. The computer program was not helping the students with the concept and

25

this frustration led to a guess and check approach to that lesson. If I had stopped the students

and taught the concept, then the students could have gone back to the program and hopefully

gotten more out of the lesson. Obviously I didn’t do this because I was evaluating

Cornerstone. If I used Cornerstone in the future, I would definitely teach and reteach as

needed.

During this project I learned how to conduct research to help me as a teacher. I have

never had an experience of observing a student closely and then analyzing what I observed. I

have made mental notes about a student’s difficulties and predicted why I thought those

difficulties were occurring, but I have never conducted true research, mainly because I didn’t

know how. While this research project was time consuming and quite challenging at times, I

did learn how to observe a student and then truly analyze that data to see what it says about the

student. I went into this project thinking both of these students shared very similar behaviors

and that was why they were not learning. While that was true to a certain degree, I didn’t

know why these students were doing these things. I discovered that in reality these students

are much more limited in knowing how to be actively engaged and participate in class. Kyle is

much more limited in this ability than Beth. After the conference with Beth and her mother

when we made it clear that Beth was in real danger of being retained, she made major changes

to her classroom behaviors. While a conference of that nature has never happened with Kyle, I

learned by interviewing him that he is very limited in knowing what it means to be a student.

He even lacks the vocabulary to discuss math. He uses multiplication and division to answer

any question asked of him. I don’t think he is aware of what he is doing in the classroom that

is interfering with his learning. As I would observe him, he was oblivious to what was

happening around him. I don’t think he understands that watching the teacher and paying

26

attention to her is how you learn. He also seems unaware that he must be involved in his

learning. He gives the impression that he thinks education is something that happens to him,

not something that he should actively participate in. I think Kyle is like this because he has

attended so many schools in his short school career.

In the future, before I make judgments about students, I will talk to them and observe

them and get a real picture of what is happening with that child. The research skills I have

learned in this class have equipped me with the knowledge to really analyze what is happening

with my students and then try to find ways to help them.

*Note

A few days before beginning this project, a parent conference was held with Beth and her mother. I, along with the principal and the classroom teacher, made it very clear to Beth and her mother that if Beth did not make some major changes at school she would be retained in the fourth grade. She was told that she must start answering her teachers when asked a question, that she must start paying attention in class, and participating in class. We explained to her was meant by participating and paying attention. As a result of this conference, Beth has made major changes in her attitude, effort, and participation.

27

References

Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial

Implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 263-286.

Drickney, N. (2006). Learning technologies for enhancing student understanding of

mathematics. International Journal of Learning, 13(5), 109-116.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlet, C., Powell, S., Capizzi, A., & Seethaler, P. (2006). The effects

of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 467-475. doi: 10.1177/00222194060390050701.

Gulley, B. (2009). A computer based education (cbe) program for middle school mathematics

Intervention. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science, 28(4), 381-404.

Hannafin, R. & Foshay, W. (2008). Computer-based instruction’s (cbi) rediscovered role in k-

12: An evaluation case study of one high school’s use of cbi to improve pass

rates on

High-stakes tests. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(2), 147-160.

doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9007-4.

LeTendre, M., Wurtzel, J., & Bouckris, R. (1999). Title I and mathematics instruction: making

the marriage work. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(5), 270-273.

28

29

McCollister, T., Burts, D., Wright, V., & Hildreth, G. (1986). Effects of computer-assisted

Instruction and teacher-assisted instruction on arithmetic task achievement scores

of kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 121-125.

Neill, M. & Matthews, J. (2009). Does the use of technological interventions improve student

academic achievement in mathematics and language arts for an identified group of

at-risk middle school students?. Southeastern Teacher Education Journal, 2(1), 57-65.

Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2009). Student achievement effects of technology-supported remediation

of understanding of fractions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science & Technology, 4(6), 713-727. doi: 1080/00207390902971999.

Suth, J., Johnston, C., & Douds, J. (2008). Enhancing mathematical learning in a technology-

rich environment. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(4), 235-241.

Traynor, P. (2003). Effects of computer-assisted-instruction on different learners. Journal Of

Instructional Psyschology, 30(2), 137-142.

30

Appendix A

Student Survey

1. To be good in math, you need to …….. because ……….

2. Math is hard when ……..

3. Math is easy when ……..

4. How can math help you?

5. If you have trouble solving a problem in math, what should you do?

6. My favorite thing about math class is ……

7. My least favorite thing about math class is …….

8. When my teacher is explaining something in class or using the projector, I am usually …..

9. I usually do math homework I don’t do my homework

If you don’t do math homework, please explain why not.

10. Overall, my general feeling about math is (circle one)

I hate math!

It’s not my favorite subject, but it’s okay.

I like math, but I’m not good at math.

I like math, and math is easy for me.

I love math!

31

Appendix B

Teacher Survey of Student Participation

1. During direct math instruction, this student is actively engaged.

Never Rarely Sometimes Most of the time Always

2. This student participates in math class discussions.

Never Rarely Sometimes Most of the time Always

3. This student completes math homework.

Never Rarely Sometimes Most of the time Always

4. When using manipulatives in math class, this student uses the manipulatives appropriately.

Never Rarely Sometimes Most of the time Always

5. This student puts forth effort in Math.

Never Rarely Sometimes Most of the time Always

32

Appendix C

Initial Student Interview Questions

1. Tell me what happens when you get home from school?

2. Where do you do your homework?

3. Does your parent sit with you while you do your homework?

4. What kind of homework do you usually have?

5. How long does it take you to do your math homework?

6. Additional interview questions will be in regard to specific student’s answers on the

survey.

33

Appendix D

Final Student Interview Questions

1. Did you enjoy using Cornerstone? Explain.

2. What did you like the best about Cornerstone. Explain.

3. What did you like the least about Cornerstone. Explain.

4. Did working through the lessons change how you feel about Math? Explain.

5. What did you learn from Cornerstone?